About your Search

20130201
20130209
STATION
CSPAN 6
CNN 2
CNNW 2
LANGUAGE
English 18
Search Results 0 to 17 of about 18 (some duplicates have been removed)
in prayer each week, members of the prayer caucus also work together to preserve the presence of religion, faith and morality in the marketplace of ideas. we're seeing increased efforts to remove references to god and fate from the public square. activists seek to remove god from our national motto and pledge of allegiance. they seek to prevent city and county councils from praying and recognizing our nation's spiritual heritage. and they seek to silence people who wish to live out their faith. members of the prayer caucus have countered these efforts successfully, ensuring that our history remains in tact for future generations. in the 112th congress, i introduced a resolution reaffirming our national motto, in god we trust, and encouraging its public display in public buildings. the measure passed overwhelmingly by a vote of 396-0. some asked why we needed to reaffirm our national motto. yet if left unstated, the motto could be changed in a de facto matter. in november, 2010, before a worldwide audience and a much publicized speech focusing on the united states relationship -- united st
for the president and members of congress to show off their religion one day a year? >> i think it's very odd. i think that there is a little too much overt religiosity going on. and then it suddenly put back in the pocket and then -- >> bill: no, i agree. i grew up under the creed that you did not wear your religion on your sleeve. and you know, you had it. it was real. it was genuine but you didn't brag about it. the problem i have with the prayer breakfast is everybody gets up and tries to outdo each other and how my faith is so strong and i pray all the time and i'm so close to jesus. come on. >> right. exactly. >> bill: it is not something to brag about. i don't think it's real if you brag about it. >> are you allowed to be diverse at the prayer breakfast? >> bill: no. no. it is one way. something else, sort of kind of related. we talked earlier in the week, victoria, about the fact that we've struggled with same-sex marriage in this country for so long, the president came around on it last year after evolving, he said. he did evolve. in the right direction. and took him a long time. but st
in the battle with some religion non-profit organizations over the requirement they offer birth control coverage in their health insurance packages. while today's shift is significant, it also leaves out a big group that is also suing the government. chief washington correspondent james rosen tells us what triggered the change. >> under the new rules proposed by health and human services secretary kathleen sebelius non-profit religious employers will be able to opt out of the obamacare mandate of female contraceptive in the healthcare plan. instead insurers will be required to provide coverage, including standard birth control and items like the morning after pill. the white house says the modifications meet president obama's overarching goals. >> we had to ensure the women have access to preventative services like contraception. the policy also respects religious beliefs. >> catholic league bill donahue held the announcement as a sign of good will toward the catholic community. because the private sector firms with religious objections are not covered by the proposal and many insurance firms ar
or the value of religion and i do think that's one of the reasons why president obama continues the tradition going his fifth he year here. there's something religiously for politicians it's a common language, trying to bridge the gap between themselves and a number of americans. we've heard president obama do that in past years in very real terms. we've learned things about him. last year we learned that he prays every day. he said he gets up in the morning, says a brief prayer and spends some time in scripture and devotion and obviously talking i think a lot in evangelical tones at the time you look at it in this event that, yes, it's not supposed to be a political event, but it was in an election year where a number of normally, i would say evangelical republican supporters had questions about mitt romney and you saw president obama maybe able to seize this moment, so i think sometimes it serves a political opportunity. sometimes it serves this sort of, serves as an opportunity for the president to reach out, and certainly at a time right now when he's dealing with some very divisive issue
on religion. it is dropping a controversial health care form provision requiring religiously affiliated provision to cover cont contraceptions as part of the plans. jessica yellin is joining us with detalils. what is the latest then front, jessica? >> hi, wolf. this policy is meant to help those organizations like catholic universities that offer their own insurance policies, and self-insure, but object on moral grounds to offer contraception. does the policy go far enough? the jury is still out. >> medals of science -- >> reporter: obama administration officials say that proposed guidelines would ensure that women get contraception for free, and no objecting religious oorganization would have to pay for it, and a seemingly perfect compromise. >> we had to ensure that women have access to preventive services like contraception, and that the policy also respects religious beliefs. >> the policy would allow a self-insured organization like a catholic university to opt-out of providing birth control, and another insurance company would give employees birth control for free. >> this clarifi
. the state has become the major religion in this country. the icons in washington -- they have to destroy every aspect of people who hold to a higher moral authority. host: the headline in this morning "the wall street journal" -- castle in michigan, on our lands for democrats. -- ethel in michigan, on our line for democrats. caller: my question is, what happened between the separation between church and state? i believe this is more of a legal issue than a religious issue. the religious issue is for the contraceptive. i can understand that. why is this being mixed in with state issues? he did not have to take them if you do not want them, if you do not believe in them. don't use them. i just cannot understand why this does not go away. i am really quite tired of it all. thank you. host: more from the article in this morning's "the wall street journal." they write -- the new rules would require insurers to pay the up-front cost. our next call comes from carol in ohio, on our line for democrats. caller: good morning. i am totally against what the catholic church and republicans are doing a
together who did not usually come together. we were not bounded in a common race or religion. we are not a theocracy. we are not a minority. this nation was born with the ideals that a united people, but these ideals compel every generation to be more inclusive and welcoming. we realize this country was not a zero some political nation. in fact, the more we open up this country to inclusion, the better we are. women joining the work force has not diminished men. it expands our economy and opportunity for all. the education of poor people in the inner-city does not take away from others, it expands our economy and makes us all do better. this is the ideal of our country. as the rabbi would tell me, the jewish saying, that jews together are strong, but jews with other people are invincible. he african saying that spiderwebs united can tie up a line. the very principle of this country, one of my advisers told me one of the fundamental principles of islam. the oneness of the community. we recognize dependency and see strength. that became the problem solving idea that i took on. i be
and exclusion from any of the activities of the state? guest: i am not the kind of islamic or religion scholar, but as a muslim i would say what is against humanity is against -- is not accepted by me as a muslim and i us as muslims in afghanistan. we do have our own definition islam and democracy, but i think it is not the way that was somehow understood in general here. host: the world press freedom index that we showed earlier showed the united states 32nd and afghanistan 128. i want to take that question and ask that about afghanistan. who is restricting the press? guest: the problems we're facing in afghanistan when i am saying "we" it means media people and media community. inside the government of afghanistan sometimes, the people who are fighting with the government, taliban, for example, and some local governments across the country, these are the three main barriers that we are facing with all that we have the constitution, the article 34 is just granting access free media and freedom of information. the article 50 is granting access to information. all of the media [indiscernible] u
they are getting religion. in fact, now it's allowing us to have a discussion where there is an acknowledgement of how much has gone into boarder security. that will be a continuing efforts, but there is a huge political, again, economic add vantsage to us if we have a sensible immigration policy with the path to citizenship. the folks who are here many of them have been working. we can get them to be out in the open rather than in the shadows and and they are taxpayers and many of them are very talented. it's going to allow families to be together and probably so i think there is a lot of interest here on the democratic side in a growing awareness on the republican side somehow same way we have to address this in a substantial way. >> wait one other issue congressman. the new york sometimes is reporting that you have introduced legislation dealing with a special benefit sort of that was given one california pharmaceutical company understand obamacare that you are trying to get rid of? >> slipped in, in the fiscal cliff negotiations at the 11th hour. over on the se
of religion with tower of babel, we know that language is essential to having an economy and country that stays together. this is a public school and the language used by the government of the united states most often is tkpwhreurb, english and these kids should be reciting the pledge of allegiance in english. >>gretchen: liz? >> i understand what you're saying. but i also believe if the children are speaking other languages, they should be allowed to say the pledge of allegiance in their languages. we live in a melting pot here in the united states where there are many different cultures and children speak many different languages and i feel they should be allowed to say the pledge of allegiance in their language if that's something they choose to do. >>gretchen: the thing for me, ladies, i guess i break it down on to what they were actually reciting. if they were reciting a nursery rhyme, then i don't think we'd be having this discussion. they were reciting the pledge of allegiance, which is our patriotic pledge to this country. and in fact, the immigration debate on capitol hill r
need to drain the swamp. instead it radicalizes people standing up using religion as a mobilizing force. host: the ambassador made a comment yesterday at a breakfast hosted by the christian science monitor. we covered it. c-span.org to what spoken. the washington times said the ambassador said that the attacks violate pakistani sovereignty and international law. the reaction from the aclu has been besthis -- ronnie in orlando, florida, independent. caller: thank you very much. i think it is absolutely outrageous, but it is just a continuation of outrageous policy that have gone on for the last almost 12 years now. i have to say that the previous caller, it just breaks my heart , in thinking that people that are objecting to these policies are against president obama along racial lines. this is not a racial issue. this is not a democrat versus republican issue. this is an issue that we americans are losing our democracy. our constitution is being shredded. gue natione nat internationally. in order to turn this around, which we have got to do, we did not lose 3,000 the law 9/11 to an outs
of rights. free interests of religion is what is under attack here. all it does is put regulatory language what was proposed a year ago by the administration as a so-called compromise. it is not. it's a farce. it's an accounting trick. catholic university, for example, is compelled by the state under obama care to offer health insurance and the health insurer is compelled by the state to provide coverage of contraceptives. the cost obviously is going to be shifted back to catholic university and its students. simple police officer a gimmick. the worst part how you define worship. churches you worship on sunday are completely exempt because that would be outrage. the secularists at the department of h.h.s. religious only the place where you go on sunday. only a place where you worship god. but if you are a catholic soup kitchen, where you are doing god's work, that's not considered religious. that from and of itself is an outrage. >> the crux of this is that nonprofits hobby horse. >> hobby lobby? >> the craft store. >> the cavity craft store which they are not part of this provision as wel
, freedom of religion, those are not just american values. the world agreed to those values and we are going to stand up for them. it is not always easy. we have to pick our time. on the first level, do what we do because it is in our interests. we have to continue to do that. as you got to the second level, how you adapt that to the world of today requires us to be more we are trying to do that. count during a violent extremism. maybe there are 50,000 violent homicidal extremist in the world. but they are able to maximize their impact and their messaging through the internet. what we have tried to do is to get in there with them, to undermine them and to rebut them. it is something we did in the cold war. more lessons i think we can transfer from the cold war to today. we don't have some monolithic soviet union. we were engaged in pushing out our ideas and our values, refuting communist propaganda. the cold war ended. "democracy has triumphed. we do not have to do that anymore." that's a terrible mistake. i have tried to convince congress and others if we do not have an up-to-date broadcast
Search Results 0 to 17 of about 18 (some duplicates have been removed)